Monotheist 101
Well-Known Member
what benefit would He gain other than a sadistic glee?
Would that be considered anthropomorphizing God?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
what benefit would He gain other than a sadistic glee?
God is omniscience and can see past and present. So for this deity to judge us would be irrelevant as it would have no free will with its own actions and could not possibly care about our actions. Our actions do not affect it whatsoever. The loving empathetic emotions we have are thanks to our brain and we know this as a fact now. God is not a human being and does not think of us as a human does.
I
B) the existence of hell (as traditionally taught) is contradictory to the nature of God
Does having knowledge of the future take away our free will?
Your actions are already decided as they are already known.
Yes it does. I recommend you learn what free will is.
Your actions are already decided as they are already known.
They will "simply cease to exist"? This, to me, makes no sense whatsoever and has no basis in scripture. To begin with, why would God even bother resurrecting them at all if He's going to turn right around and cause them to cease to exist? If He never bothered to resurrect them in the first place, wouldn't the end effect be the same? There has got to be some logical reason why He'd resurrect them and then do away with them.
Of-course you don't take your body along with you in your dreams. Can't you be tortured in your dreams ? just think about.Physical body dies after physical death so no physical hell can torture a soul hence I don't believe in physical hell.
How can it NOT?With the exception of the last passage you mentioned (which can actually be interpreted in more ways than one), I see absolutely no indication that the wicked will simply "cease to exist."
For instance, the passage in Daniel says that some will rise "to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace." How on earth can "non-existence" be equated to everlasting disgrace?
Well then this is apparently one area where Jehovas Witnesses would be correct. If you interpret the scriptures differently that's fine, but I still haven't heard YOUR interpretation of them. To me, the plain reading of the text is clear. I personally see no other reasonable interpretation that is consistent with scripture, but by all means "share" if you think something else makes more sense.I agree 100% with all of these passages. I just don't interpret them the same way as the Jehovah's Witnesses do. And trust me, I know Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine when I see it, even when it's presented by people who don't self-identify as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Because the bible tells us his nature. He is an eternal spiritual being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-loving, all-merciful, who judges in righteousness. He cannot lie, he cannot deceive, and he cannot ever change. He is the only truly "good" being in this universe.How can we be absolutely certain about the nature of God?
We've had this discussion before, James, and it didn't end well. You and I understand the timeline of these events completely differently. We're poles apart on how we interpret the exact same scriptures.There is. Shortly after the millennium (Rev 20:5), every man, woman, and child who did not receive an unencumbered opportunity to know Christ, in this age, will be resurrected back to physical life and be given a period of time (Isa 65:20), with the veil of deception removed (Isa 25:7) to accept or reject Him. Those who reject Him will be cast into the lake of fire and die the second death and simply cease to exist. If there is a second death, logic would dictate there had to be a first, right?
Non-existence would definitely imply lack of consciousness. And one can feel no disgrace if one is unconscious.How can it NOT?
Yeah, funny on how how closely aligned you are with them on so many significant doctrines.Well then this is apparently one area where Jehovas Witnesses would be correct.
Oh, so now you want to hear my brainwashed version, the one I couldn't possibly have derived from the scriptures, but had drummed into my head by Mormonism? I don't have time this morning to get into it with you. I'd be happy to this evening, but I honestly think it would be pointless. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses may both deny the Nicene Creed, but apart from that, we have little in common. Your mind is made up and nothing I could possibly say is going to change it. I already had this same conversation with James and it led absolutely nowhere. The problem is that we completely disagree about what happens at the moment of death. And from there, the divergence just gets more complicated.If you interpret the scriptures differently that's fine, but I still haven't heard YOUR interpretation of them. To me, the plain reading of the text is clear. I personally see no other reasonable interpretation that is consistent with scripture, but by all means "share" if you think something else makes more sense.
For those of us here (especially those who believe in a God/Higher Power/A Source) who do not believe in a physical Hell, do you ever think if this is because you genuinely don't, or because you don't want to, because the thought of going to such a place for a long time or eternity is too frightening and too much to bear?
Read the scripture again. This time, from the King James version (which is closer to the word-for-word Hebrew).Non-existence would definitely imply lack of consciousness. And one can feel no disgrace if one is unconscious.
Why is that "funny". I am no doubt aligned with many various Christian denominations on many significant doctrines (including the most significant). Just as I disagree with many denominations on various issues. How is this relevant? What are you getting at here?Yeah, funny on how how closely aligned you are with them on so many significant doctrines.
Would I have asked if I didn't?Oh, so now you want to hear my brainwashed version, the one I couldn't possibly have derived from the scriptures, but had drummed into my head by Mormonism?
Well get back to me when you have time.I don't have time this morning to get into it with you.
Well if you think it'd be a waste of time, why tell me?I'd be happy to this evening, but I honestly think it would be pointless.
A) I am not James.Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses may both deny the Nicene Creed, but apart from that, we have little in common. Your mind is made up and nothing I could possibly say is going to change it. I already had this same conversation with James and it led absolutely nowhere. The problem is that we completely disagree about what happens at the moment of death. And from there, the divergence just gets more complicated.
Yes, he did say that. But nobody here is disputing that! Revelation 20:15 (which I already quoted) clearly reinforces this passage.In the NT, Jesus Christ first used the term "hell fire" (Matt. 5:22), and it was Jesus Christ who said in Matthew 25:41, ". . . Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."
Again correct. However, in addition to what I just said concerning the nature of the punishment (which is also not described here), this statement is also not literal. It is a symbolic representation of removing the sinful influences from your life, rather than suffering the consequence of sin (which is death). Jesus is not literally asking people to cut their hands off here! Do you really think that Jesus expects his followers to amputate body parts whenever they are tempted by sin? Of course not! The "hell" in this context is gehenna (which was a real place in Israel of everlasting fire). It is used here to represent the second death (lake of fire). But none of that suggests the eternal, conscious state of torment.It was Jesus who warned that... it is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched (Mark 9:43)
Sin is sin! The definition of sin is going against God! So there is really one one way to look at it. The issue is, what does the bible says is the punishment for sin? The answer is death, not a conscious state of eternal torment.I dont think God looks at sin as some slight trivial, temporal, infraction as humans do.
Well first of all, Humans WERE made in God's image, but humans also sinned and became imperfect. The consequence of original sin was that we were NOT eternal. Adam was banished from the Garden of Eden and cut off from the tree of life so that he would die. At that point, humanity ceased being "eternal beings" because the wages of sin is death! The only way to achieve eternal life is through salvation in Christ.I believe since God is an Eternal and Holy Being and humans are made as eternal beings in His image the impact and consequences of sinning against a Holy God and His creation are serious and eternal.
That's because you're only looking at it from an English language perspective without taking into consideration what such terms are translated from, and what they mean in the original Greek. The Greek word-for-word translation is "THEY-SHALL-BE-BEING-ORDEALizED OF-DAY AND OF-NIGHT INTO THE eons OF-THE eons". This passage could be interpreted MANY possible ways (made further true by the fact that Revelation is a prophetic dream told largely in metaphor, not a literal account). The scripture as written simply implies that these three factions will be "dealt with" and will never again have an impact in God's kingdom. Revelation 14:11 is not a declaration of what happens to any sinner on Earth. It is speaking specifically about the "Devil/Dragon", the "Beast", and the "False Prophet" (which most theologians consider to be symbolic concepts, and not specifically individuals). The Beast is actually a governmental system that will control an alliance of nations, which will exist for a short time just before Christ's return. How can a governmental system (a concept) literally be "tormented"? That's why you can't just take the English translation of it at face value (otherwise it makes no sense).I dont see annihilation as true because the Bible uses such terms as "shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2) and "torment . . . forever" (Rev. 14:11).
First of all, you are combining two different, unrelated scriptures, talking about different entities. There is no scripture that says people will be resurrected to "eternal shame and torment"! Daniel 2:12 says "and some toShame and torment are states of being that are experienced by a conscious, living being, not an annihilated corpse.
Outside of the book of Revelation (which we know is allegorical) show me some place in the bible where Jesus or any of his Apostles ever state that sinners will be "tormented eternally".Also, in the scriptures Jesus and the other writers make such a point of the importance of being saved from such a destination of torment.
You make that sound like a light punishment! :sarcasticIf annihilation was all that occurred after death
Of course it would matter! God's plan is for all us to be saved from death. That's why he sent his son to die on the cross for us. Why do you think it wouldn't matter to God whether we live forever or die?I dont think there would be the emphasis on being saved since it wouldnt matter after death anyway, without consciousness.
I agree. But NONE of them imply it is a literal place of eternal life in torment. And that's the only point I'm making.i see a variety of terms used in the scriptures to describe different aspects of eternal damnation, all of which indicate it is a place to be avoided and be saved from.
Thanks, but no thanks. I don't read links. I listen to individual arguments based on scripture. Anyone can find a link that supports any position they want to endorse. But that doesn't change what the bible actually says!The link below gives a few more scripture references and thoughts on the subject for anyone interested: